The problem is that the nanoHUB citation can create some confusion. In this case the thesis was done in 2009, yet the nanoHUB shows 2011 since its the publish date. In other cases, especially talks that are a delivery of a specific journal published paper, authors may see the nanohub citation as a dilution of references to their journal article.

1. The citation reference(s) should be on equal footing as the nanohub reference (i.e. in the box, not displaced outside of the box). The external citations references should precede the nanohub reference.

2. The citation should be included in the downloadable bibtex/endnote files.

An additional suggestion might be to change the wording a bit in the citation title where it now says “Researchers should cite this work as follows:”, perhaps better wording might be resource type specific where
for example online presentations might say “Researchers should cite this presentation as follows:”

The confusion lays around the word “work” a research does not necessarily think of the presentation as the “work”, the work is the scientific exploration, and thus would prefer that the journal article be the expression of the “work” and not their presentation.

Get Involved

Legal

nanoHUB.org, a resource for nanoscience and nanotechnology, is supported by the National Science Foundation and other funding agencies. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.